Sun Bank of Miami v. E. C. Ernst, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sun Bank of Miami v. E. C. Ernst, Inc.

395 So. 2d 282, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18988

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 17, 1981

DocketNo. 80-743

StatusPublished

This text of 395 So. 2d 282 (Sun Bank of Miami v. E. C. Ernst, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sun Bank of Miami v. E. C. Ernst, Inc., 395 So. 2d 282, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18988 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment under review is affirmed on the basis that appellant’s right of set-off was negatived by: (a) the non-mutuality of claims, Everglade Cypress Co. v. Tunnicliffe, 107 Fla. 675, 148 So. 192 (1933); (b) the characterization of the account as an account for a special purpose, Tunnicliffe v. Sears, 107 Fla. 669, 148 So. 197 (1932); Coyle v. Pan American Bank of Miami, 377 So.2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Bank of West Orange v. Associates Discount Corp., 197 So.2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 556 (Fla.1967); and (c) the knowl-. edge of appellant that the disputed funds were deposited by appellee rather than appellant’s debtor, 4715 Realty Corp. v. Central Bank and Trust Co., 301 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Central Bank and Trust Co. v. Shipman, 127 So.2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment under review is affirmed on the basis that appellant’s right of set-off was negatived by: (a) the non-mutuality of claims, Everglade Cypress Co. v. Tunnicliffe, 107 Fla. 675, 148 So. 192 (1933); (b) the characterization of the account as an account for a special purpose, Tunnicliffe v. Sears, 107 Fla. 669, 148 So. 197 (1932); Coyle v. Pan American Bank of Miami, 377 So.2d 213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Bank of West Orange v. Associates Discount Corp., 197 So.2d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 556 (Fla.1967); and (c) the knowl-. edge of appellant that the disputed funds were deposited by appellee rather than appellant’s debtor, 4715 Realty Corp. v. Central Bank and Trust Co., 301 So.2d 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Central Bank and Trust Co. v. Shipman, 127 So.2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

395 So. 2d 282, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sun-bank-of-miami-v-e-c-ernst-inc-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack